I have heard the NHL Center Ice package will be free this season. Certainly a gesture the NHL should provide to mend some fences with the fans. - PLindbergh31
From what I've heard, the NHL does not have the power to grant that.
Wifeskippy enjoyed my reading of your posts to her. Especially of the NJ mascot story. Actually, no. She liked your jab at Dancing Shawny better. - Flyskippy
I used to send all the drunk guys over to dance with him. That was the best. I enjoyed it in the impish puppeteer kind of way.
The obvious concern is commitment level. But if he could be had on a one year deal for small money, I'd be more comfortable with Ranger than the current 3rd pair candidates...and also, with Meszaros still being hobbled a bit, Ranger could take on a bigger role.
I'm not sure if he wants to stay in the GTA, though...I've seen that suggested. - Jsaquella
It seemed like the team was playing for Hawking. - flyer_nutter
I hated that about Stevens, he never seemed to have that fire. Not saying I want a coach that is always yelling, but someone that shows their passion. Who knows maybe behind closed doors Stevens showed more.
I hated that about Stevens, he never seemed to have that fire. Not saying I want a coach that is always yelling, but someone that shows their passion. Who knows maybe behind closed doors Stevens showed more. - LJF
He had his moments. He won the 1998 Calder Cup as Captain of the Phantoms. You don't have to be a fiery guy to lead a team.
Lebrun explains the ramifications of the "Luongo Rule"
THE LUONGO RULE
This is another rule from the league aimed at hammering current back-diving deals (front-loaded, "cheat deals." However, this has changed from its original form when the NHL first proposed it in October.
In the original formula, if a player like Roberto Luongo was traded and retired before the end of his deal, the Canucks (the team who signed him to the contract) would assume his remaining $5.33-million cap early hit in retirement. The new rule in this tentative agreement is different. Now, for any contract in excess of six years, both teams involved in a trade on a contract like Luongo’s would be penalized if he retired before the end of his deal.
To wit: let’s say the Canucks trade Luongo soon. Luongo has played two years of his 12-year contract, the Canucks paying him $16.716 million in salary but only absorbing a $5.33 million cap hit each year. That’s a cap savings of $6.056 million over two years so far for Vancouver. Under this new rule, should the Canucks trade him now and he retires with three years left on his contract, Vancouver would be charged that $6.056 million in cap savings over the final three years left on his deal from 2019 to 2022. However, let’s say for argument’s sake Luongo gets traded to Toronto, the Maple Leafs also would be subject to cap penalties if Luongo retires before the end of his deal.
To wit, part 2: If Luongo were to play the next seven years of his deal in Toronto before retiring, the Leafs would be paying him $43.666 million in salary but only counting $37.31 million against the cap over those seven years, a cap savings of $6.356 million. So if Luongo retires with three years left on his deal (because his salary falls to $1.618 million in the 10th year and then $1 million in the last two years of the deal), the Leafs would get charged that $6.356 million on their cap spread evenly over the remaining three years of his deal.
And obviously, if players under these back-diving deals are never traded, but retire before the end of their deals (Marian Hossa in Chicago), their current teams get charged the cap savings spread evenly over the remaining years of the deal.
So if Mike Richards retires before his deal is up, the Flyers and Kings would BOTH incur cap penalties. The other wrinkle for the Flyers is that the cap penalty incurred is based on the cap relief each team got from the contract. Jeff Carter never played for the Flyers under his 11 year deal. Nor did JvR under his 6 year deal. So, in theory, if Carter hung it up before the deal expires, the Flyers may be off the hook completely.
HT to Kevin Christmann at Flyers Faithful for his homework and his blog on the subject
Lebrun explains the ramifications of the "Luongo Rule"
THE LUONGO RULE
This is another rule from the league aimed at hammering current back-diving deals (front-loaded, "cheat deals." However, this has changed from its original form when the NHL first proposed it in October.
In the original formula, if a player like Roberto Luongo was traded and retired before the end of his deal, the Canucks (the team who signed him to the contract) would assume his remaining $5.33-million cap early hit in retirement. The new rule in this tentative agreement is different. Now, for any contract in excess of six years, both teams involved in a trade on a contract like Luongo’s would be penalized if he retired before the end of his deal.
To wit: let’s say the Canucks trade Luongo soon. Luongo has played two years of his 12-year contract, the Canucks paying him $16.716 million in salary but only absorbing a $5.33 million cap hit each year. That’s a cap savings of $6.056 million over two years so far for Vancouver. Under this new rule, should the Canucks trade him now and he retires with three years left on his contract, Vancouver would be charged that $6.056 million in cap savings over the final three years left on his deal from 2019 to 2022. However, let’s say for argument’s sake Luongo gets traded to Toronto, the Maple Leafs also would be subject to cap penalties if Luongo retires before the end of his deal.
To wit, part 2: If Luongo were to play the next seven years of his deal in Toronto before retiring, the Leafs would be paying him $43.666 million in salary but only counting $37.31 million against the cap over those seven years, a cap savings of $6.356 million. So if Luongo retires with three years left on his deal (because his salary falls to $1.618 million in the 10th year and then $1 million in the last two years of the deal), the Leafs would get charged that $6.356 million on their cap spread evenly over the remaining three years of his deal.
And obviously, if players under these back-diving deals are never traded, but retire before the end of their deals (Marian Hossa in Chicago), their current teams get charged the cap savings spread evenly over the remaining years of the deal.
So if Mike Richards retires before his deal is up, the Flyers and Kings would BOTH incur cap penalties. The other wrinkle for the Flyers is that the cap penalty incurred is based on the cap relief each team got from the contract. Jeff Carter never played for the Flyers under his 11 year deal. Nor did JvR under his 6 year deal. So, in theory, if Carter hung it up before the deal expires, the Flyers may be off the hook completely.
HT to Kevin Christmann at Flyers Faithful for his homework - Jsaquella
how on earth is it okay for these penalties to incur against contracts that were signed BEFORE this new cba
how on earth is it okay for these penalties to incur against contracts that were signed BEFORE this new cba
bizarre to say the least - Don'tForgetTocchet
From my reading on the topic, the NHL wanted the teams that originally signed any long term, back diving deal(Pronger, Hossa, Richards, Briere, Kovalchuk etc) to bear the entire brunt of the deal in case the player retired prior to the completion of the contract. In other words, they wanted to make any deal longer than 6 years into a 35 & over deal.
Either way, the rule adopted was based on a NHLPA proposal. I had expected something like this, because Bill blogged about it a few months ago. It's my big fear with Bryzgalov's contract.
As for how or why the NHL is punishing teams for signing legal contracts signed in the past...ask Mr Bettman. My guess is they wanted to punish teams that found the loopholes in the last CBA as well as strongly discourage any loophole spelunking in the current deal.
From my reading on the topic, the NHL wanted the teams that originally signed any long term, back diving deal(Pronger, Hossa, Richards, Briere, Kovalchuk etc) to bear the entire brunt of the deal in case the player retired prior to the completion of the contract. In other words, they wanted to make any deal longer than 6 years into a 35 & over deal.
Either way, the rule adopted was based on a NHLPA proposal. I had expected something like this, because Bill blogged about it a few months ago. It's my big fear with Bryzgalov's contract.
As for how or why the NHL is punishing teams for signing legal contracts signed in the past...ask Mr Bettman. My guess is they wanted to punish teams that found the loopholes in the last CBA as well as strongly discourage any loophole spelunking in the current deal. - Jsaquella
i fear the ramifications of teams contesting the legality of changing the terms of a previously allowed contract... which were all signed off on by the nhl ...
i fear the ramifications of teams contesting the legality of changing the terms of a previously allowed contract... which were all signed off on by the nhl ... - Don'tForgetTocchet
I think that teams will just hold their breath and hope that any players on back diving contracts will not retire too early. I doubt any team will fight the rule, because they will all likely agree to the CBA and will fear ramifications from the league down the road.
I think that teams will just hold their breath and hope that any players on back diving contracts will not retire too early. I doubt any team will fight the rule, because they will all likely agree to the CBA and will fear ramifications from the league down the road. - Jsaquella
i really don't follow this stuff, is there any precedent of something like this... changing the terms of a contract previously approved by the nhl?
and is there a clause about early retirement due to injury?
